His name and his results were given, they are obviously supported by the APA board and the DSM.

Oh? Where?
Show me where YOU posted, linked and quoted any Zucker-studies. And how you infer that they were "obviously supported" by the APA and the DSM - and how that appeal to authority gives them more validity.

Again you accuse the APA and DSM committe of either incompetance for choosing him without checking his work or conspiracy in support of child abuse.

He got his promotions and positions within the APA and DSM (2007 and 2008) BECAUSE of and AFTER his work and reports on GIDIC not before it, i suggest you research your absurd claims of APA/DSM incompetance and or conspiracy in support of child abuse a bit better in future.

Aaand....we got another appeal to authority.
Again, he could be a demigod of psychology, he would still have to present evidence - and in all fields of medicine that includes independent studies.

I do believe i said APA and DSM and yes the DSM are quite simply the technical manuals or bibles as they have been refered to for mental illnesses for the entire psycological community..

And because they are mainly constructed by the APA, every single piece in it obviously represents the entire psychological community.
Stop inflating Zuckers authority, no matter how big it is appealing to it is no valid argument.

1. A letter commenting on a doctor who called Drs. Bradley and Zucker homophobic regarding a issue to do with children with GID?. Can you do no better than a guy who does not know the differance between a homosexual and a transgebder?.

More ignorance. Zucker specifically aims at things that are ALSO expressed by homosexual children. Even the DSM-IV link i gave above shows that MOST children he treats would just develop naturally into homo-or bisexuality. And he specifically suppresses these things. That might not be Zuckers actual goal, but it still happens.
Or do you think that GID automatically equals TS?

I see that you ignored the evidence i showed that Zuckers method is aimed at all kinds of GID in children (which he mixes together) and that his success rate is mostly explained by natural development.
And you are still not presenting any evidence on your own. If you HAD it, doing so would be trivial and would shut me right up on that issue. So you evidently do not have it.
Hence, you are arguing purely based on your anti-trans bias and not based on any evidence.

The idea that transsexualism is an essential and biological feminisation of the brain was a major component of your argument for quite some time. You can't really claim that something is a strawman when it was one of the cornerstones of your argument for a couple of weeks.

No, this is not an ad hominem attack. It is merely a debunking of Kors/Oraghans appeal to his authority. Their claim, not mine.

If you can explain - logically - how claiming Zucker published only 49 papers is anything but an inaccurate argumentum ad hominem Zucker, I will be amazed. At the moment, I consider such a feat impossible.

Wait, i thought your had no rules of evidence here?

There are no official rules of evidence - as in you will not get banned for making bald assertions without backing them up. However, it's a very unconvincing tactic.

I already referred to David Reimer and similar cases.

Which would be slightly more relevant if you were still saying that transsexualism is as simple as having a brain of the wrong type in the wrong body - a precisely female brain in a precisely male body.

If you'd as much as mentioned Reimer and Zucker in the same post before, that might also have been slightly more convincing.

Conditioning doesn't change gender identity, even if it is much stronger than what Zucker does.

Cart before the horse again. Zucker is asserting it can, and has evidence that he think proves it - evidence that goes well beyond the scope of accidental case studies in relevance and rigor.

As it so happens, the other literature suggests that all that it's just part of an array of longitudinal studies displaying that GID in childhood has only a little to do with being transsexual in adulthood.

All they did was pulling a name out of a hat
You will notice that they do not quote any studies or link to them. That's not an argument, that's an appeal to authority.

See, you're making unsourced claims there again. I've reviewed your posts. You have yet to cite papers which contradict Zucker or imply that his method is a failure. This isn't to say that they don't exist (I linked to an overview article that discussed the rates at which childhood GID appears to persist into adulthood); you simply didn't cite them, refer to them, or in any fashion allude to their existence. Your "proof" amounted to re-stating your own model of transsexuality.

Wrong. They have to cite independent papers. No matter how famous a scientist is, his work has to be independently verified. Again, it is not my job to back up their claim.

Do you not understand what you've actually said?

I don't have a problem with you demanding evidence. I do have a problem with you making bold claims without providing evidence for them. You claimed that there were numerous other experts out there contradicting Zucker. You didn't supply them. That makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about, and offers, via the fallacy ad logicam, illogical - but real - inducement towards the other side.

How helpful do you think Point45 is to the Saxtonite cause on SpaceBattles? His only "helpful" function is to help the mods look less biased when he manages to get banned.

Yet i can not find long-term observation in Zuckers studies. If there is any, show it.

He has done some short term studies and you probably skimmed one of them, but the claim of 80% "cure" rates was published in his 1995 book with Bradley, "Gender identity disorder and psychosexual problems in children and adolescents." The length of the average follow-up interval therein is 8.4 years. That's not exactly short term.

Less blind luck than compressed knowledge. More-or-less official german literature on transsexuality mentions that (1).
Of course, that not a scientific source and not quotable or linkable.

And where do you think the book gets that from? The "assorted longitudinal studies" that pre-date it. Including, in all probability, Zucker's work.

Just the main theory about transsexuality which states that it is pretty independent on nurture?

What "main theory" again?

Right, what you're trying to convince your opponents of. You're putting the horse before the cart. Or perhaps I should find a German equivalent: "Das Pferd von hinten aufzäumen."

Again, you keep criticizing me because i demand evidence.

No, it's not that.

My opponents used NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, they just appeal to Zuckers authority.

And it's effective, isn't it?

Kor, introducing Zucker wrote:In fact Kenneth Zucker has had a huge amount of success with his treatment of children who show signs of transgendered behaviour. In one group of 50 all but 10% were essentially cured and now live happy lives within their natural physical and biological gender, older individuals are less willing and as such do not respond well to treatment.

His overall sucess rate is roughly 80-90%.

Zucker has published almost 100 articles in peer-reviewed journals. These articles have been cited over 2000 times, with an h-index of 20. In 2007 Zucker was chosen to be a member of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Gender Identity, Gender Variance, and Intersex Conditions, and in 2008 was named chair of the Americ[an Psychiatric Association workgroup on "Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders" for the 2012 edition of the DSM-5. He previously served on workgroups for the DSM-IV and the DSM-IV-TR.

(Actually, you were the first to mention Zucker in this debate - you cited one of his papers, in one of the posts in which you felt like actually providing evidence.)

So here's the problem. You're in an argument, lay person to lay person. Neither one of you is actually a qualified expert. Bringing up an expert that agrees with you doesn't mean you are necessarily correct, but it's a pretty convincing tactic.

You responded by attacking his expert and claiming he's not much of an authority. This was the wrong technique to use on Blanchard and the wrong technique to use on Zucker. Both of them are big shots in the psychiatric world, with numerous feathers in their caps proving that a lot of people think they're experts.

i can not find a single studies agreeing with him where he is not involved.

You can't even get through his own studies, it would seem. That you can't find an article is only going to convince your opponent that those articles don't exist only if your opponent thinks you're very good at finding papers and trusts you to tell the truth. Neither one is the case. As far as I can tell, Kor doesn't trust you to tell the truth and thinks you can't understand scientific articles.

Just because something is published in a peer-reviewd journal it doesn't have to be right.

No, but it's one of the best indications. When your opponent is able to cite peer-reviewed articles in his or her favor, you had better be able to pull out the big evidentiary guns. Instead, you took out a pair of starter pistols and fired off a bunch of blanks.

Again, it is Kors/Oraghans job to give actual evidence for their anti-trans claims.

And it's your job to back up your own claims.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Cosmetic appearance is largely the first phase.

And unless we're working in a hospital, it's usually the last phase, too. We examine what the body looks like on the outside. If it doesn't fit neatly in the box, we engage in a little surgery to make it fit in the box.

Generally, for not really important matters, contrary to ethical or philosophical issues, we tend to limit ourselves to what's simple enough, to what is superficial and practical and yet what doesn't shock our views on the world, and the observation of the codes. Of course, as pointed out, you have more chances of being considered a woman in your daily life, with a passing interest, if you match enough critera, both about physiognomy, behaviour and dressing. But the topic never limited itself to that. You can have a Japanese male dressing up as a girl, wearing fake breasts and women clothes, enough make up and behaving like a woman, to pass as one. But this remain nothing more than superficial. Science doesn't stop there.

But science doesn't tell us how to decide to treat each other, either.

That they are aware or not is irrelevant. You can have a disease and not know it, or have a cancer. Your ignorance isn't powerful enough to trump reality though.

But what's the reality here?

Is it biological essence? Or social function? We're not actually that concerned with reproductive capabilities in deciding whether someone should wear a dress or be addressed as "sir" or "madam."

People naturally looking half way between both genders, without being particularly handsome, indeed tend to be hard to identify. This happens, for example, when you see someone on TV and you ask yourself "wait, is that person a woman?"
But then, again, this happens very rarely.

Say... about 1 in 10 cases in the casual contexts?

And obviously the members of the society, as a whole, don't seem to be bothered about trying to trump the opposite gender about their own true gender. Namely, the vast majority of women won't suddenly develop an odd interest in trying to pass off as men, and quite logically so: because there's no point doing so.

Sometimes there is. Men may have more rights. They may be able to go into male-only zones. You need to combine motive and ability, and weigh the probability of passing against the consequences of being unmasked. Motive might not be that rare. Ability might not be that rare. However, the two are pretty independent, so the combination is going to be rarer than either.

And vice et versa. So you can safely consider that what looks like the majority of feminine codes will be followed by the immense majority, if not near totality of females.
The odd cases, again, are just that. Odd. Rare. They don't break the norm.

If they don't break the norm, we may as well assign all of them piecewise.

The idea that transsexualism is an essential and biological feminisation of the brain was a major component of your argument for quite some time. You can't really claim that something is a strawman when it was one of the cornerstones of your argument for a couple of weeks.

And it still is. We DO know that transsexual women start out with some minor brain feminisation (i presented evidence earlier), and we do not know what exact parts of the brain are responsible for gender identity.
Thus, my argument still is that transsexual women start out with a female gender identity.

If you can explain - logically - how claiming Zucker published only 49 papers is anything but an inaccurate argumentum ad hominem Zucker, I will be amazed. At the moment, I consider such a feat impossible.

And if you could kindly explain to me how their appeal to authority is valid to start with, i will be amazed.

Which would be slightly more relevant if you were still saying that transsexualism is as simple as having a brain of the wrong type in the wrong body - a precisely female brain in a precisely male body.

If you'd as much as mentioned Reimer and Zucker in the same post before, that might
also have been slightly more convincing.

I actually expected that other could make that connection as well.
Either way, the "precisely female brain in a precisely male body" is a strawman you swallowed whole from our little trio here. That is NOT required, since many elements of male or female brains have been shown to be completely irrelevant to gender identity.

As it so happens, the other literature suggests that all that it's just part of an array of longitudinal studies displaying that GID in childhood has only a little to do with being transsexual in adulthood.

Yes. I have pointed that out - and Kor is ignoring it. As he always does if evidence contradicts his prejudice.

I don't have a problem with you demanding evidence. I do have a problem with you making bold claims without providing evidence for them. You claimed that there were numerous other experts out there contradicting Zucker. You didn't supply them. That makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about, and offers, via the fallacy ad logicam, illogical - but real - inducement towards the other side.

There are, because Zuckers method is not used anywhere in Europe to my knowledge. When we have a child with GID here, we determine whether it is actually transsexual with prolonged psychological observation and treat it accordingly if it is. This is done in AT LEAST in the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland, all of which have centers that specifically deal with transsexuality in underage children. I just don't know about other European countries, but i have not found anyone using Zuckers method there either.
So Kors claim that Zuckers is universally accepted is just plain wrong.
He isn't, otherwise Kor could present evidence for independent verification of his findings.

You can't? You think he doesn't consider long term effects? Perhaps, in reading the roughly hundred articles he had written, you failed to notice the times where he complained about how previous researchers have failed to follow up over a long enough period?

That is a case study, and can hardly be called observation.
What i am actually looking for is Zucker regularly checking on his patients after the end of their "treatment".
The second paper is about interssexuality, NOT transsexuality.
You are now using strawman attacks in order to support Kors argument.

He has done some short term studies and you probably skimmed one of them, but the claim of 80% "cure" rates was published in his 1995 book with Bradley, "Gender identity disorder and psychosexual problems in children and adolescents." The length of the average follow-up interval therein is 8.4 years. That's not exactly short term.

And it's not exactly long-term either. Even if we assume that he treated 17-year olds, his average adult subject is only 25 years old. Given the younger age of his patients, the actual number will be closer to 18-20.
Given that transsexuality is often only expressed at ages of 30+ or 40+ because these people grew up in repressive, gender-restrictive environments very similar to Zuckers "treatment", this is hardly evidence that he is actually curing it instead of suppressing. In fact, it seems we have a pattern here that is typical for older transsexual people - the attempts to appear normal while trying to channel their actual gender into accepted activities up to a point where the stress from doing so results in an actual coming-out.
I can only hope for their sake that i am wrong, but sadly there is nothing that indicates
such.

It is cited in the literature. Did I link to that article before? I think I did.

And where do you think the book gets that from? The "assorted longitudinal studies" that pre-date it. Including, in all probability, Zucker's work.

Bravo, JMS. Another strawman, you are doing the same thing as Kor again - mixing up GID and TS without making any distinction.
In regard to the supposed studies, this is what your own source says:

As there have been no large studies to date on the course of GID, and, in particular, no studies focusing on causal factors for GID, the evidence level for the various etiological models that have been proposed is generally low

Only 2.5% to 20% of all cases of GID in childhood and adolescence are the initial manifestation of irreversible transsexualism.

So Zuckers studies can, in fact, not be called long-term studies. And we have another piece of evidence that Zucker is not actually successful.

You can't even get through his own studies, it would seem. That you can't find an article is only going to convince your opponent that those articles don't exist only if your opponent thinks you're very good at finding papers and trusts you to tell the truth. Neither one is the case. As far as I can tell, Kor doesn't trust you to tell the truth and thinks you can't understand scientific articles.

I don't give a damn about Kors opinion. I give a damn about the opinion of others. That's because i have found people who are as prejudiced as Kor to be generally unconvincable by anything but a massive personal experience, which i can not (and would not like to) provide.

Again, Kor only appealed to authority. He did not cite or name or link any peer-review articles, much less comprehensively enough to support a whole theory. He is only crying Zucker again and again. He is not providing any of the evidence i am asking for, but if it existed it would be trivial to do.
Criticizing me for making a bad argument while you ignore a worse argument on my opponents side just gives the impression that you are defending him.

Oh? Where?
Show me where YOU posted, linked and quoted any Zucker-studies. And how you infer that they were "obviously supported" by the APA and the DSM - and how that appeal to authority gives them more validity.

Nice try at another strawman, i said i posted his RESULTS, and they are obviously supported by the DSM and APA or he would bot have gotten his positions regarding the subject with the DSM/APA if they were not.

Aaand....we got another appeal to authority.
Again, he could be a demigod of psychology, he would still have to present evidence - and in all fields of medicine that includes independent studies.

He has obviously presented enough to satisfy the APA and DSM.

He is unlikely to ever present enough to satisfy you.

More ignorance. Zucker specifically aims at things that are ALSO expressed by homosexual children. Even the DSM-IV link i gave above shows that MOST children he treats would just develop naturally into homo-or bisexuality. And he specifically suppresses these things. That might not be Zuckers actual goal, but it still happens.
Or do you think that GID automatically equals TS?

He has clearly stated that his treatment does not effect homosexuality and a significant percentage of the children he treats do go on become homosexuals, so claiming that he tries to suppress homosexuality is absurd.

I see that you ignored the evidence i showed that Zuckers method is aimed at all kinds of GID in children (which he mixes together) and that his success rate is mostly explained by natural development.

I saw the claim, i saw NO EVIDENCE.....in fact it is clearly commented on that Zucker ONLY treats children with extreme cases of GID a fact that is totally opposite to your bullshit claim.

If you HAD it, doing so would be trivial and would shut me right up on that issue.

LOL, you would just deny making the claim and move the goal posts regarding the issue just like you did with the female brain in a mans body crap you initially spun.

EVERY time you have been proven wrong (and it is a heck of a lot of times for somebody in a queue to get bits chopped off.......personally id wanna be 100% certain of my facts before such a operation) you have just changed the argument or changed how your initial claim is defined....not a female brain?, you change how YOU define female brain ect ect.

A person knowing the facts would not need to use such obvious and underhand tactics regarding a subject and not knowing but still demanding surgery while loudly supporting errors in the facts regarding the subject casts doubts on your ability to make a rational decision regarding the matter.

I honestly do not think you are objective enough to make the decision about SRS for yourself and think you should be denied it until you are more emptionally stable.

And again, no actual evidence. Just appeals to authority. And lot's and lot's and LOT'S of ignorance.

EVERY time you have been proven wrong (and it is a heck of a lot of times for somebody in a queue to get bits chopped off.......personally id wanna be 100% certain of my facts before such a operation) you have just changed the argument or changed how your initial claim is defined....not a female brain?, you change how YOU define female brain ect ect.

Hey, guess what:
You are, again, contradicted by professionals. Namely, my psychologist - i got my indication for SRS three weeks ago. And she was never concerned about me being "emotionally instable".
Of course, it is already ignorant to assume that theoretical understanding of transsexuality is required to be sure whether you want SRS or not. That is an emotional issue, not a logical one - your statement here reminds me of the stereotypical 40+ males who can not deal with emotions and try to use logic instead. Those people are usually emotionally crippled.

A person knowing the facts would not need to use such obvious and underhand tactics regarding a subject and not knowing but still demanding surgery while loudly supporting errors in the facts regarding the subject casts doubts on your ability to make a rational decision regarding the matter.

Guess what:
You are wrong again. Because making a rational decision for myself requires zero understanding of Zuckers theories. That is mostly because he deals with children. He does NOT deal with adult transsexuals. For someone championing him, you should really know that.
So yeah, i could completely agree with Zucker and it would not affect me or my personal decisions in any way, shape or form. I am sorry to tell you, but Zucker does not support your prejudice against adult transsexuals.

I honestly do not think you are objective enough to make the decision about SRS for yourself and think you should be denied it until you are more emptionally stable.

Yes, because a uneducated gardener can absolutely judge how emotionally stable someone is by reading posts on the Internet.
Or, you know, not. You are simply extremely arrogant for making such a ignorant statement. Which directly contradicts the professional oppinion of one (or rather two, tough the latter is not yet in written form) psychologists.

But of course, you would actually like to supress transsexuality as much as possible. So this is not suprising at all. You nicely illustrated that here by wanting to deny me my SRS.

Now go and make an actual argument. Use Zucker if you want, but make actual arguments. You are still only appealing to his authority. You can claim that i would ignore evidence all you like, but not posting it is just plain wrong.

Serafina wrote:Hey, guess what:
You are, again, contradicted by professionals. Namely, my psychologist - i got my indication for SRS three weeks ago. And she was never concerned about me being "emotionally instable".
Of course, it is already ignorant to assume that theoretical understanding of transsexuality is required to be sure whether you want SRS or not. That is an emotional issue, not a logical one - your statement here reminds me of the stereotypical 40+ males who can not deal with emotions and try to use logic instead. Those people are usually emotionally crippled.

You initialy posted in this very thread that transgenders had female brains in a male body, that turned out to be wrong and from my perspective anybody not knowing the facts about such a serious matter is obviously not able to make a rational decision regarding it.

There is nothing emotionally crippled about say myself wanting to know the reasons for a non life or death major and life changing operation, in fact not wanting to know is a clear indication my emotional state is not as it should be.

Guess what:
You are wrong again. Because making a rational decision for myself requires zero understanding of Zuckers theories.

I was not refering to zuckers cure i was refering to your initial claim about having a female brain being proven wrong and your continued denials of claiming such and your switch to another track because of being proven wrong.

Yes, because a uneducated gardener can absolutely judge how emotionally stable someone is by reading posts on the Internet.
Or, you know, not. You are simply extremely arrogant for making such a ignorant statement. Which directly contradicts the professional oppinion of one (or rather two, tough the latter is not yet in written form) psychologists.

Arrogant?...ignorant?, this from the person who's argument against Zucker and others relies on the APA and DSM to be either totally incompetant or in a conspiracy to cover up child abuse.............

A very amusing fact is that your reply comes in the form of a direct appeal to authority, a tactic that you claim i am using for your attack against Zucker the APA and the DSM.

Anyway i am sure you did plenty of research on the "transgender narrative" and put on a good performance for them, you certainly have shown a willingness here to say or do anything no matter how absurd to try and get what you want or dismiss individuals in the profession.

But of course, you would actually like to supress transsexuality as much as possible. So this is not suprising at all. You nicely illustrated that here by wanting to deny me my SRS.

I would deny you SRS because of my experiances with you as a person on here, il reserve my judgment on other transexuals until i have had dealings with them like i have you.

You initialy posted in this very thread that transgenders had female brains in a male body, that turned out to be wrong and from my perspective anybody not knowing the facts about such a serious matter is obviously not able to make a rational decision regarding it.

And again this is wrong.
Because i can still determine my gender identity and my psychologist as well.
The CAUSE for it is irrelevant, it is still female. Just like i can determine the color of something without knowing the cause for that coloration.

There is nothing emotionally crippled about say myself wanting to know the reasons for a non life or death major and life changing operation, in fact not wanting to know is a clear indication my emotional state is not as it should be.

No, i said that because you are trying to tackle an emotional issue (gender identity) disregarding emotion and focussing purely on logic.
So instead of asking whether i am sure of my emotions(which i am), you are saying that i do not know the facts and can therefore not be right. But emotions are the only fact that matters here - the scientific cause of transsexuality is completely irrelevant.

I was not refering to zuckers cure i was refering to your initial claim about having a female brain being proven wrong and your continued denials of claiming such and your switch to another track because of being proven wrong.

I would not care if there was zero neurological cause for transsexuality. I was completely sure of my female gender identity before i knew about the probable cause of it. If that cause turned out to be wrong, i would not care and not be any less sure of myself. Even if it was shown that it was completely caused by wrong nurture, i would not be any less sure of myself - i am who i am, and i happen to be female. Others see me as female, i behave like any other woman (with all the variations) and my body adapts more and more. And i am happy. And no prejudiced semi-octagenarian gardener is going to change that.

Arrogant?...ignorant?, this from the person who's argument against Zucker and others relies on the APA and DSM to be either totally incompetant or in a conspiracy to cover up child abuse.............

A very amusing fact is that your reply comes in the form of a direct appeal to authority, a tactic that you claim i am using for your attack against Zucker the APA and the DSM.

Anyway i am sure you did plenty of research on the "transgender narrative" and put on a good performance for them, you certainly have shown a willingness here to say or do anything no matter how absurd to try and get what you want or dismiss individuals in the profession.

Hey, ignorance again.
I did not appeal to authority, i referred to a scientifically done study regarding myself. Or rather, a medical diagnosis. If i talk about, say, cancer and how my doctor diagnosed it and claims that i have good chances of getting better, that is not an appeal to authority.

I have data, provided by my psychologist. You have no data other than what you are reading here, and you lack the capability (since you are no psychologist) to analyze the data even if you had more of it.

And regarding "transgender narrative": You are an arrogant, prejudiced liar.
I told my psychologist that i had no conscious female gender idenity until a few years ago. Which was a serious issue that had to be resolved in order for her to be sure that i am sure about myself (and it has).
I also told her dozens of other things that violate the tpyical transgender narrative - having friendships that are like male-male ones, telling about male hobbies and other male behaviour without shame and much more.
That's because i am honest. And because i genuinely wanted to be sure about myself.
And because your prejudice that transwomen are liars is wrong. I am a woman regardless, determined by a medical professional. And the words of a pseudo-psychologist gardener don't change a thing about that, regerdless of how prejudiced he is.

I would deny you SRS because of my experiances with you as a person on here, il reserve my judgment on other transexuals until i have had dealings with them like i have you.

In other words, you are so incredibly arrogant that you think you can judge a persons emotional stability solely based on a few posts on the Internet, even if that happens to directly contradict the opinion of medical professionals.

Serafina wrote:And again this is wrong.
Because i can still determine my gender identity and my psychologist as well.
The CAUSE for it is irrelevant, it is still female. Just like i can determine the color of something without knowing the cause for that coloration.

If the cause is irrelevant then all you have achieved by trying to force others to accept your flawed theory regarding a cause is to alienate ppl.

No, i said that because you are trying to tackle an emotional issue (gender identity) disregarding emotion and focussing purely on logic.
So instead of asking whether i am sure of my emotions(which i am), you are saying that i do not know the facts and can therefore not be right. But emotions are the only fact that matters here - the scientific cause of transsexuality is completely irrelevant.

I am not trying to do any such thing, it was you who introduced the science and female brain in a mans body argument into the discussion, but not it has been shown to be wrong you act like science is the enemy, those supporting it are bigots and we should all not rely on your emotional bias as a pure referance point....no thanks.

Hey, ignorance again.
I did not appeal to authority, i referred to a scientifically done study regarding myself. Or rather, a medical diagnosis. If i talk about, say, cancer and how my doctor diagnosed it and claims that i have good chances of getting better, that is not an appeal to authority.

So exactly like Zucker and others did with their patients then?.

I have data, provided by my psychologist.

And we have data provided by Zucker.

And regarding "transgender narrative": You are an arrogant, prejudiced liar.

The proven liar in this thread and on this subject is you not me, but you expect me and others to believe you were honest to your psycologist when it really matters to you when you cannot even be honest on a forum where it does not matter?....sorry but nope.

In other words, you are so incredibly arrogant that you think you can judge a persons emotional stability solely based on a few posts on the Internet, even if that happens to directly contradict the opinion of medical professionals.

You are arrogant. Arrogance is the only word that fits here.

The arrogance is from the person who's argument against a medical professional requires we accept the fact that the APA and DSM are incompetant or part of a child abuse conspiracy...............look to yourself for arrogance not me.

If the cause is irrelevant then all you have achieved by trying to force others to accept your flawed theory regarding a cause is to alienate ppl.

They are called "people". We are neither talking about a computer language nor about chemistry. And lazy spelling is, in my opinion, quite lazy.
There, club duties fulfilled for the day.

That aside, you are strawmaning again. Because i have specifically said that the cause is irrelevant to my personal identity. It could be caused by cheese rain from a cheddar moon by all i care, i am still who i am.

I am not trying to do any such thing, it was you who introduced the science and female brain in a mans body argument into the discussion, but not it has been shown to be wrong you act like science is the enemy, those supporting it are bigots and we should all not rely on your emotional bias as a pure referance point....no thanks.

You are strawmanning again. I am talking about my personal identity again.
The rest is just more of that strawman.

So exactly like Zucker and others did with their patients then?.

Except that there is a difference between making a medical diagnosis and proposing a medical theory. Both require different standards of evidence. Do you need an explanation of that concept?

And we have data provided by Zucker.

Where?
You never provided any. Sure, you provided some made-up "success" numbers, but no actual studies. Which is what i have been asking for all along. And you are still running from it.

The proven liar in this thread and on this subject is you not me, but you expect me and others to believe you were honest to your psycologist when it really matters to you when you cannot even be honest on a forum where it does not matter?....sorry but nope.

I see, you completely ignore the reason why you were a liar.
And again, you claim that you can judge a person by that person appearance in one specific thread on the internet. Perhaps that works with plants, but i have never seen a plant accessing the internet (tough i once had a plant blocking my computers ventilation).

The arrogance is from the person who's argument against a medical professional requires we accept the fact that the APA and DSM are incompetant or part of a child abuse conspiracy...............look to yourself for arrogance not me.

And more strawmen. Say, are you a member of the family of blood? I better get my mobile phone then, and a fob watch.

Come on, Kor. Present some actual evidence. Or concede, either works for me.

I've rarely seen someone strawmaning, backflipping and backpedaling so much while denying it as Serafina does. She's not even trying to argue a point, she's just arguing and dragging people into her little lair of madness. Please, continue.
It's just too funny to watch.

Serafina wrote:
That aside, you are strawmaning again. Because i have specifically said that the cause is irrelevant to my personal identity. It could be caused by cheese rain from a cheddar moon by all i care, i am still who i am.

It is not a strawman it was a massive part of how you defined yourself and transgenders until it was proven to be a load of rubbish, NOW you are pulling this new spin that is purely about what you personally want because the sciences has let you down.

Except that there is a difference between making a medical diagnosis and proposing a medical theory.

Both require different standards of evidence. Do you need an explanation of that concept?

You mean the fact that Zucker is credited with diagnosing (and then curing) more GIDIC than any other doctor in the world due to it being his area of expertise?.....

Maybe you should ask your doctor if he uses the DSM or other books derived from it as a referance for his diagnosis.........cos you know who was on the workgroups that wrote and defined it right LOL?.

If your doctor does use the DSM or works derived from it i guess you will have to support Zucker as i insightful and wonderful person who help others recognise your symptoms and call him a fraud, liar and child abuser at the same time LOL.

You obviously need to think before you post.

Where?
You never provided any. Sure, you provided some made-up "success" numbers, but no actual studies. Which is what i have been asking for all along. And you are still running from it.

Again a claim of "made up" success numbers that require incompetance or complicity in child abuse from the APA and DSM...

I am not running from anything, your claim that a doctor you saw says you are a certain way is no more valid and likely less valid than the report from Zucker on his results. The real differance is that children are not practiced liars like you nor do they have access to the "transgender narrative" like you did.

I see, you completely ignore the reason why you were a liar.

You did not include one, unless you are counting your claim that you added non transgender narrative stuff into the crap you told your shrink.................a very interesting claim considering you must have known what the narrative was in the first place to have known you added stuff not in it.

Did you get advise to muddy the water a bit to make you look "honest" from a website or did you just think it up yourself?, did they gve you areas you could be a little grey on and others that you had to be totally black and white?......

It is not a strawman it was a massive part of how you defined yourself and transgenders until it was proven to be a load of rubbish, NOW you are pulling this new spin that is purely about what you personally want because the sciences has let you down.

No, it WAS a strawman.
Because you claimed that i can not possibly define my own personality when i do not understand the scientific background of it. But i obviously CAN define with without knowing about the scientific background.

Here, let me quote your original prejudiced drivel again:

EVERY time you have been proven wrong (and it is a heck of a lot of times for somebody in a queue to get bits chopped off.......personally id wanna be 100% certain of my facts before such a operation) you have just changed the argument or changed how your initial claim is defined....not a female brain?, you change how YOU define female brain ect ect.

Why the hell should i need to know about brain chemistry or psychology to know whether i want SRS or not? That's why i go to my psychologists, because she is way more qualified to judge it from a medical point of view than i am.
What i want or not want is not dependent on understanding the reason why i want it.
That has been your personal attack, and it is obviously based on prejudice and ignorance.

You mean the fact that Zucker is credited with diagnosing (and then curing) more GIDIC than any other doctor in the world due to it being his area of expertise?.....

Not independent evidence. Not even evidence from Zuckers own studies. Just an appeal to authority.

Maybe you should ask your doctor if he uses the DSM or other books derived from it as a referance for his diagnosis.........cos you know who was on the workgroups that wrote and defined it right LOL?.

Oh, and what about the ICD? you know, the actual international diagnostic manual?
Besides, Zucker is explicitly talking about children. Not adult transsexuals. You do not even understand your own argument, it seems.

If your doctor does use the DSM or works derived from it i guess you will have to support Zucker as i insightful and wonderful person who help others recognise your symptoms and call him a fraud, liar and child abuser at the same time LOL.

And another ignorant claim. Zuckers is working with children, not with adults. Both the ICD and the DSM differ between GID in children and adult transsexuality. Do some reasearch on your own claims.

Again a claim of "made up" success numbers that require incompetance or complicity in child abuse from the APA and DSM...

The "success"-part is made up. Probably by you, since you never quoted and linked any of Zuckers studies that claimed so.

I am not running from anything, your claim that a doctor you saw says you are a certain way is no more valid and likely less valid than the report from Zucker on his results. The real differance is that children are not practiced liars like you nor do they have access to the "transgender narrative" like you did.

You are not running? Then where is the evidence? Link and quote some actual studies to support your argument.
And you are calling transsexual people liars again. Well, i suppose you can freely attack whole groups of people based on nothing but prejudice and the distortion of statistics around here - after all, you are not required to back up anything.

You did not include one, unless you are counting your claim that you added non transgender narrative stuff into the crap you told your shrink.................a very interesting claim considering you must have known what the narrative was in the first place to have known you added stuff not in it.

And how do you KNOW that i lied?
The answer is, of course, that you don't. You are just assuming it - a prejudice.
Besides, the second part of that drivel is also nonsense - if i do not know "transgender narrative" and just tell the truth, it can very well contain stuff that is not included in the narrative. This is incredibly obvious to any clear-minded person.
And i originally did not know about "transgender narrative" - the only reason why i am reading up on the whole science of transsexuality is because bigoted people like to distort it in order to justify their hate and prejudice towards transsexual people.

Did you get advise to muddy the water a bit to make you look "honest" from a website or did you just think it up yourself?, did they gve you areas you could be a little grey on and others that you had to be totally black and white?......

No, you prejudist. You are still assuming that all transwomen automatically lie and have to in order to fool trained psychologists (which is, by the way, normally quite hard).
I did not look up anything about that when i started my therapy. I only started to do so about half a year ago after the parents of a friend of mine started to harass her after they had been exposed to material from anti-trans people like you.
And i am regularly advocating just telling your psychologist the truth, because a good psychologists will not care about individual deviations from the "transsexual narrative" because most of them are not evidence against being transsexual at all.

Again, you are just posting a drivel out of ignorance, hate and prejudice. You are posting zero evidence and you are making no argument except shouting "Zucker" all over again.
But ironically, your sugar is not even agreeing with you - he is not working on adult transsexuality at all. His work has nothing to do with me, since i did not even display GID-symptoms in childhood.

Serafina wrote:
Because you claimed that i can not possibly define my own personality when i do not understand the scientific background of it.

I made no such claim, yet another outlandish accusation dreamed up by you.

Here, let me quote your original prejudiced drivel again:

EVERY time you have been proven wrong (and it is a heck of a lot of times for somebody in a queue to get bits chopped off.......personally id wanna be 100% certain of my facts before such a operation) you have just changed the argument or changed how your initial claim is defined....not a female brain?, you change how YOU define female brain ect ect.

How is me feeling that i would want to know why i was getting such a surgery prejudiced?, or do you think that me pointing out how you move goal posts every time you lose a argument what you are refering to?..

Either way there is nothing predjudicial in that statment, but then you are looking for excuses to use your new insult that you have replaced "bigot" with so.........

Besides, Zucker is explicitly talking about children. Not adult transsexuals. You do not even understand your own argument, it seems.

Again you fail at the research you demand from others, Zuckers work on the DSM is not just about children it is actually for "Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders" in general.

The "success"-part is made up.

Says you lol.

And you are calling transsexual people liars again.

Well documented liars, maybe all maybe not all but certainly you.

And how do you KNOW that i lied?

You do it here a lot so i see no reason why you would not do it elsewhere......a liar exposed is still a liar.

Besides, the second part of that drivel is also nonsense - if i do not know "transgender narrative" and just tell the truth, it can very well contain stuff that is not included in the narrative. This is incredibly obvious to any clear-minded person.

What is incredibly obvious to any clear-minded person is that you listed several of the things you said that were outside the "transgender narrative" a few posts back...so how did you know them huh?....i only know there IS a narrative i have no idea what is actually contains or what contradicts it.

And i originally did not know about "transgender narrative" - the only reason why i am reading up on the whole science of transsexuality is because bigoted people like to distort it in order to justify their hate and prejudice towards transsexual people.

Oh dear back to bigot insults...

Like anybody belives you revisionism after the fact you dropped yourself deep in it.

No, you prejudist.

Do you think using that word in any form is any better than bigot and not a personal insult, you just cannot make a few posts without resorting to personal insults can you?.

I made no such claim, yet another outlandish accusation dreamed up by you.

Oh, you didn't? Read what i quoted just after that.

How is me feeling that i would want to know why i was getting such a surgery prejudiced?, or do you think that me pointing out how you move goal posts every time you lose a argument what you are refering to?..

Your "argument" went like this:
"You have been proven wrong on your believed reason for transsexuality. Hence, you can not be sure about wanting SRS because you can not be sure about your identity.

You also confirm that later on when you "reason" why you would deny it to me:

I honestly do not think you are objective enough to make the decision about SRS for yourself and think you should be denied it until you are more emptionally stable.

That clearly referred to your claim that my proposed cause is wrong, yet that has nothing to do with my being sure about myself, as i explained repeatedly. You have no evidence from which you can reasonably conclude that i am not sure about myself, hence it is based on prejudice either way.

Either way there is nothing predjudicial in that statment.

There is, because you assume that i am not sure about myself out of the blue. It is a judgment without information - a prejudice.

Again you fail at the research you demand from others, Zuckers work on the DSM is not just about children it is actually for "Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders".

Any backup for that by actual links and quotes?
Besides, even if that is true, then your appeal to all his other work is still pointless.

Says you lol.

How about quoting the whole thing liar?

The "success"-part is made up. Probably by you, since you never quoted and linked any of Zuckers studies that claimed so.

Got any refutation other than "lulz"?

Well documented liars, maybe all maybe not all but certainly you.

Documented by what?
And i would love to see your proof that i lied to my psychologist. Because there is just no way for you to know that - you just conclude it out of your prejudice.

You do it here so i see no reason why you would not do it elsewhere...a liar exposed is still a liar.

That's just ignorant. Because someone is lying in a very specific case (not that i am), you can not conclude that that person always lies. Another prejudice.

What is incredibly obvious to any clear-minded person is that you listed several of the things you said that were outside the "transgender narrative" a few posts back...lol.

And again, you ignoring what i actually wrote. Such as:

And i originally did not know about "transgender narrative" - the only reason why i am reading up on the whole science of transsexuality is because bigoted people like to distort it in order to justify their hate and prejudice towards transsexual people.

Oh, wait, you respond to that - with an argument from personal incredulity.

Do you think using that word in any form is any better than bigot and not a insult?.

Yes it is. Because a prejudice is not necessarily a bad thing. Everyone has them.
You could argue that calling someone a prejudist is a bad thing, of course.
But since you do not consider calling all transsexual people liars, i hardly think this is too extreme or unwarranted. And since you are repeatedly judging people without any evidence at all, i can present empirical proof that you have prejudices.